How do Creationists explain vestigal organs?

[Skaloop]

Who you're quoting is the vague part.

I wasn't quoting anybody. I was merely stating a fact.

 

[SkyWriting]

Who said anything about being hurt?

I did. Here is where your feelings were hurt and you're displaying
your pain for all the world to read your torment. We sorry.
Or are you just a Taddle-Tail?

It seems to be a common trait among Creationists; they'll present a plausible argument that applies to one specific situation (in your case, that the routing of nerves in the human eye is necessary for cooling but is not required for an octopus) but when the scope of application of that argument is expanded (fish who live in the same environment as an octopus have the same nerve routing as humans) it falls apart.

 

[SkyWriting]

...all vertebrates have blind spots in their eyes caused by the routing of the optic nerve?

So we've dropped the old topic?
I don't have a quick answer.
I shall work on it.

Vestigial organs - The list of 89 items is almost completely gone. It's day is doomed.

 

[Rubiks]

There is no such thing as a vestigial organ. Just because we do not know the function of an organ, does not make it vestigial. Being able to live without an organ does NOT make it vestigial. For example, a person can live without fingers, but are these vestigial organs? Absolutely not!

 

[SkyWriting]

There is no such thing as a vestigial organ. Just because we do not know the function of an organ, does not make it vestigial. Being able to live without an organ does NOT make it vestigial. For example, a person can live without fingers, but are these vestigial organs? Absolutely not!

So if people can walk even after we remove their toenails, doesn't that prove that toenails used to be animal claws?

 

[Skaloop]

I did. Here is where your feelings were hurt and you're displaying
your pain for all the world to read your torment. We sorry.
Or are you just a Taddle-Tail?

I'm mot hurt by it. Just frustrated (or amused, depending on my mood).

 

[Skaloop]

So we've dropped the old topic?

What old topic?

I don't have a quick answer.
I shall work on it.

I await your response with baited breath.

Vestigial organs - The list of 89 items is almost completely gone. It's day is doomed.

I haven't been talking about vestigial organs, I've been talking about eyes.

 

[Smidlee]

Oddly enough, when expanding the scope of such an argument, evolution explains it perfectly.

Perfectly? here's how evolution explains it:
Hocus pocus : the complex light sensitive cell appears between a dark layer of cells and transplant protective layer
Hocus pocus : These layers changing shape
Hocus pocus : the eyeball is formed
Hocus pocus : the lens is formed
Hocus pocus : muscles are attached to the eyeball.
Hocus pocus: the nerves rewired themselves on the opposite side
Etc.
Evolutionist reminds me of the verse Matthew 23:24 where Jesus told hypocrites that they strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. They nitpicked at the eye to find anything that they suppose to be bad design yet are totally blind how poorly designed their explanation of how the eye could evolve .
Just as Behe pointed out years ago each of this so called "small steps" required severe complex proteins to be in places for these changes to take place. Evolutionist totally ignore what scientist has learn about biochemistry in the last decades.

 

[Tiberius]

And it's not an issue for species that do have stereoscopic vision because one eye covers the same space where the other does not.
Got it.

And there are many species that do NOT have stereoscopic vision, so you still need to explain why having a blind spot is a good design in species that are unable to compensate for it with stereoscopic vision.

 

[USincognito]

There is no such thing as a vestigial organ. Just because we do not know the function of an organ, does not make it vestigial. Being able to live without an organ does NOT make it vestigial. For example, a person can live without fingers, but are these vestigial organs? Absolutely not!

Could you tell us what science means when it refers to vestigial structures? All you've done is give us your opinion about what it does not refer to.

 

[USincognito]

Perfectly? here's how evolution explains it:
Hocus pocus : the complex light sensitive cell appears between a dark layer of cells and transplant protective layer
Hocus pocus : These layers changing shape
Hocus pocus : the eyeball is formed
Hocus pocus : the lens is formed
Hocus pocus : muscles are attached to the eyeball.
Hocus pocus: the nerves rewired themselves on the opposite side
Etc.

Why do Creationists post stuff like this and expect to be taken seriously?

 

[The Engineer]

There is no such thing as a vestigial organ. Just because we do not know the function of an organ, does not make it vestigial. Being able to live without an organ does NOT make it vestigial. For example, a person can live without fingers, but are these vestigial organs? Absolutely not!

The definition of vestigial is not "useless". Learn the definition, then come back.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Why do Creationists post stuff like this and expect to be taken seriously?

Especially when it's creationists, not scientists, who propose magic as a mechanism.

 

[Jro]

No solid source, not right now. The creationist websites are the ones that shout the loudest about it, but I found no refutation of their argument.

Yeah, I always wonder about those (is it a case of a solid argument, or just a novel one? etc.)

In fact, Wikipedia makes similarly claims in their articles about "retina" and "cephalopod eyes", and they are backed up, too.

From what I've read this formation of the retina can cause decreased blood flow to photoreceptors and a detached retina. Will look up further information though!

However, they don't support the creationist view that the difference is evidence of ID. As I said, the difference between human and cephalopod eyes is still strong evidence for evolution, just not particularly strong counter-evidence against ID.

I don't know- it at least points to a marginalized creator that has to make compromises in her design. Yeah I said it.

 

[SkyWriting]

And there are many species that do NOT have stereoscopic vision, so you still need to explain why having a blind spot is a good design in species that are unable to compensate for it with stereoscopic vision.

Fish move all the time. Others have eyes that move all the time.
Human eyes move all the time also helping to fill the need.

We all have a blind spot. The backside of our head.
Note that our ears, eyes, and nose all face one direction.
If your going to complain about one little spot, then you should
devote how much time to everything else that is outside of the
field of vision? Our acute vision is 15 degrees out of 360.
Why not complain about that 345 that is missing from our
acute view? Why not Google-street-view-Tech that is 360
all the time? But it's not. What about Google-cam attackers from
straight up or down? Don't humans need to see straight up and down too?

All humans should be just a big Iris with a brain at the center so we can see 360 all the time.
With no eye lid. Just a big gooey Iris that floats.

 

[SkyWriting]

I don't know- it at least points to a marginalized creator that has to make compromises in her design.

That's a very old marketing idea:

 

[SkyWriting]

I haven't been talking about vestigial organs, I've been talking about eyes.

Then start a new thread. I'm trying to stay on topic for a change.

 

[sandwiches]

No solid source, not right now. The creationist websites are the ones that shout the loudest about it, but I found no refutation of their argument. In fact, Wikipedia makes similarly claims in their articles about "retina" and "cephalopod eyes", and they are backed up, too. However, they don't support the creationist view that the difference is evidence of ID. As I said, the difference between human and cephalopod eyes is still strong evidence for evolution, just not particularly strong counter-evidence against ID.

Care to link them? I've yet to find anything that links cooling of the retina or better vision with inverted receptors and the blind spot.

 

[Tiberius]

Fish move all the time. Others have eyes that move all the time.
Human eyes move all the time also helping to fill the need.

We all have a blind spot. The backside of our head.
Note that our ears, eyes, and nose all face one direction.
If your going to complain about one little spot, then you should
devote how much time to everything else that is outside of the
field of vision? Our acute vision is 15 degrees out of 360.
Why not complain about that 345 that is missing from our
acute view? Why not Google-street-view-Tech that is 360
all the time? But it's not. What about Google-cam attackers from
straight up or down? Don't humans need to see straight up and down too?

All humans should be just a big Iris with a brain at the center so we can see 360 all the time.
With no eye lid. Just a big gooey Iris that floats.

Where do you come up with this nonsense?

You completely ignore my point. Either that or you have no comprehension at all of what I am saying, and you make a big blustery noise to cover it up.

 

[SkyWriting]

Where do you come up with this nonsense?

You completely ignore my point. Either that or you have no comprehension at all of what I am saying, and you make a big blustery noise to cover it up.

#2